Reaction to Wahl-Jorgensen

The first quote from the text has a few points I agree with and one that I do not. I agree with what the text is saying when it says "They (journalists) decide on the legitimate and valuable topics for the agenda based on the estimation of the public’s need to know" (18). I agree with this statement in the

sense that as a journalist you determine what is newsworthy and what your readers need to know, and by doing this you are in turn acting as a father figure. As a journalist you are given the power to guide your reader through your story from your point of view and give the reader the what you thought was important. An example of this is how different journalists reported different things on last nights State of the Union Address. Many journalists focused on the economy and other major points that the president made but no one person wrote exactly the same story, each journalist wrote from what they thought was important to cover.  The part of the text that I tend not to agree with is the end where the text says "(journalists) don’t see the necessity for listening to the public. (Page 18). I don't agree with this statement because I believe it is untrue. As a journalist you must always have a sense of public opinion. If the public does not like what you are producing in your work they are more likely to find another source that delivers what they are looking for. An example of this would be a journalist who decided to ignore last nights State of the Union Address  and chose another topic to report on. The public outcry would be great and as the journalist I feel you would lost credibility points with your audience. As a journalist you are free (in most cases) to deliver what you think is newsworthy but as a journalist you must always listen to your audience and never take them for granted.